It's time for the annual influx of superficial (or otherwise overstated) claims about the justices' lack of division. There are at least four different reasons why such accounts fail to persuade.
"But in reality, the ruling was 5-3, with the three Democratic appointees concurring only in the judgment—and on far narrower grounds that would’ve taken much less of a bite out of a critically important environmental protection law than Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion."
This is the second time you have said something like this and it at least requires an argument and not an ipse dixit.
NEPA isn't a substantive environmental statute. It doesn't regulate a single pollutant or clean up a single site. It is a procedural statute that requires environmental impact statements and then allows lawyers for rich people to sue and block the project because some detail of the report was missing. It is a great statute for rich people and for environmental lawyers' paychecks but it doesn't protect the environment.
SCOTUS cut it back and therefore cut back on the ability of extremely wealthy people to file NIMBY suits to prevent the government from building stuff. Seems fine to me.
I personally am eager for SCOTUS reform! Yet another of our once illustrious institutions that has become overshadowed by a lack of integrity, ethics and loyalty to the spirit of the law.
There is an unanswered question remaining: Why does it matter so much that the court selects the cases it handles? I would imagine that Democratic justices would want to revisit a case decided by the previous proceeding in GOP's favor and vice versa. This would favor "non partisan" and "GOP" cases of over "DEM" cases in the present constellation. What else is there?
"But it’s a very good bet that we’re going to see some sharp divisions (and sharp rhetoric) before the justices rise for their summer recess—at which point narratives about the Court’s alignment and agreement will almost certainly have to be … revisited."
You probably explained this somewhere else, so please forgive me if I'm bringing it up again. Are the concurrences and dissents generally written, at least chiefly, by the justices themselves, or by their clerks? Does that differ from justice to justice?
The whole People Magazine focus on whether justices are getting along on a personal level seems kind of weird to me. They weren't chosen, or confirmed, on the basis of having an amiable personality. The country has still live with the result of their decisions, whether they have lunch with each other or hide in their offices, muttering under their breath.
"But in reality, the ruling was 5-3, with the three Democratic appointees concurring only in the judgment—and on far narrower grounds that would’ve taken much less of a bite out of a critically important environmental protection law than Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion."
This is the second time you have said something like this and it at least requires an argument and not an ipse dixit.
NEPA isn't a substantive environmental statute. It doesn't regulate a single pollutant or clean up a single site. It is a procedural statute that requires environmental impact statements and then allows lawyers for rich people to sue and block the project because some detail of the report was missing. It is a great statute for rich people and for environmental lawyers' paychecks but it doesn't protect the environment.
SCOTUS cut it back and therefore cut back on the ability of extremely wealthy people to file NIMBY suits to prevent the government from building stuff. Seems fine to me.
I personally am eager for SCOTUS reform! Yet another of our once illustrious institutions that has become overshadowed by a lack of integrity, ethics and loyalty to the spirit of the law.
Insightful.
There is an unanswered question remaining: Why does it matter so much that the court selects the cases it handles? I would imagine that Democratic justices would want to revisit a case decided by the previous proceeding in GOP's favor and vice versa. This would favor "non partisan" and "GOP" cases of over "DEM" cases in the present constellation. What else is there?
What do the colors signify in the chart of cases shown today?
I note that yellow means a super high profile merits case. How about the other colors?
Six advocates in robes.
"But it’s a very good bet that we’re going to see some sharp divisions (and sharp rhetoric) before the justices rise for their summer recess—at which point narratives about the Court’s alignment and agreement will almost certainly have to be … revisited."
You probably explained this somewhere else, so please forgive me if I'm bringing it up again. Are the concurrences and dissents generally written, at least chiefly, by the justices themselves, or by their clerks? Does that differ from justice to justice?
The whole People Magazine focus on whether justices are getting along on a personal level seems kind of weird to me. They weren't chosen, or confirmed, on the basis of having an amiable personality. The country has still live with the result of their decisions, whether they have lunch with each other or hide in their offices, muttering under their breath.